Francesco Poli wrote: > On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 21:24:00 +0200 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: > > The sign [X] (hereafter "the Mark") is a trademark, rights to which > > are held by [Y], representing [Z] if applicable (hereafter "the > > Mark Holder"). > > Wait, the "Mark Holder" would be [Y], I think.
I thought you used Y and Z for cases where Y is licensing Z's trademark (if Y is Z's subsidiary or authorized licensee for example). Then the trademark holder is Z but Y has certain rights to the mark. The "if applicable" means if there is a Z. Perhaps the whole Z thing should be taken out. "Rights to which are held by Y", and in the document where you define Y you can explain that Y is a subsidiary of Z or whatever. > | If the Mark qualifies as an original work of authorship under > | copyright law, then the Mark Holder hereby also grants you a copyright > | license, but that is not a trademark license and should not be > | construed as one. That's what I meant. If you're separating the two, I don't think the word "also" in the above is appropriate. I guess in such a case you don't want to say more than "there's also a copyright license, go read that one, but remember it's not a trademark license." | If the Mark qualifies as an original work of authorship under | copyright law, then the Mark Holder SEPARATELY grants you a copyright | license, but that is not a trademark license and should not be | construed as one. That word 'separately' makes it clear that this sentence is merely an explanation and not by itself a copyright license. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
